Monthly Archives: September 2009

So Democrats were highly offended by Republican claims that the liberal plan for government run health management and care actually created bureaucratic political appointed panels designed to determine the type of treatment that severely ill people should be granted and what has been called end of life counseling. That very process which was outlined in H.R. 3200 was exaggerated by some and described as death panels. The phrase tried to define the process as a group of individuals who would stand between you and doctors and determine the treatment that you should get or even if you were worth the cost of getting treatment.

For the record, the concern was not initiated by Republicans. It initially came from the public who became concerned the the combination of government managed healthcare, end of life counseling and the attempt to cut costs could lead to what some called death panels and others called a legitimate concern because of the language in the bill.

In an attempt to make the Republican claim seem totally irrational, Democrats took the vivid description a step further and claimed that Republicans were suggesting that Democrats wanted to “pull the plug on grandma”. In fact, the first person to use that phrase in the current healthcare debate was President Obama. During an early August town hall meeting on the issue in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, the President used the phrase and attributed it to be how Republicans described H.R. 3200.

The situation would seem to be one where the President and Democrats exaggerated Republican exaggerations. But as if that was not enough, Democrats continue to escalate the already overembelished claims even more than before.

On Tuesday, Florida Democrat Alan Grayson took the floor and stated that Republicans want you to not get sick and if you do get sick, they want you to die quickly. But he didn’t even just say it, he actually had his staff prepare poster boards with his claim that want you die to quick printed on it.

Now I am not one immune from the lure of using the power of dramatic flare that exaggeration can have to make a point. However, in order to exaggerate something, there must be something to exaggerate. In the case of H.R. 3200, embellished claims about bureaucratic boards that would determine how individuals get treatment and the language which described end of life counseling, led to questions about whether or not the government would begin to decide who is worthy of expensive treatments and who is not. There was a legitimate concern to exaggerate. There was something to embellish. But in the case of Alan Grayson, he has nothing in the Republican healthcare proposals which he could possibly embellish into the claim that “Republicans want you to die quickly”

Grayson’s deplorable and deceitful approach to ramming through government run health management and care warrants a public statement from the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives which makes it clear that they distance themselves from Grayson’s remarks.

If they refuse to distance themselves from this kind of demagoguery than they must take the blame for adding to the divisive atmosphere that prevails on this and many other issues.

Until such time as a public statement denouncing Grayson’s theatrics and charges comes from the Democrat majority, they cannot expect others to engage in debate with any sincere spirit of cooperation. In fact, without a public denouncement of Grayson’s propaganda, they should expect the level of discourse to only increase.

As for Representative Alan Grayson, in my opinion, based upon his record of uselessness and total lack of honesty and decorum, he should do us all a favor and follow the advice that he falsely attributes to Republicans.

Dan Rather, the disgraced television journalist and news anchor, just lost the chance to get richer and to rehabilitate his deserved disgraceful reputation.

After trying to fake the facts about President George W. Bush’s record in the National Guard in order to promote his own liberal biases against the former President, Dan Rather was pushed into early retirement. The episode was called memo gate and it was a shameful example of bias and a total lack of journalistic integrity. It involved a decision by Dan Rather to run with falsified reports of the former President’s service record which asserted that George W. Bush failed to fulfill his service commitment to the Air National Guard during the early 70’s.

Dan Rather and his staff aggressively pursued and then ran with the story without ever verifying the legitimacy of the documents which were later found to have been forgeries. Between the lack of standards applied to the research of Rather’s report and the timing of the report during the 2004 presidential elections largely indicated not just a breach of journalistic integrity and decency but as a blatant example of media bias.

The controversy forced CBS, the network which featured Dan Rather, in a difficult spot and by the end of the 2004 election year, Rather was forced into an early retirement as the most respectful way to get rid of the a prominent but discredited newsman.

Animated GIF image comparing what CBS claimed to be a 1973-era typewritten memo with a 2004-era Microsoft Word document made with default settings

The early exit angered Dan Rather, but few could legitimately defend his illegitimate conduct and actions and so he had no choice but to leave. Disgruntled by the situation and the fact that his controversial career had come to an end on such an auspicious, sour note, Rather tried to sue CBS over the matter and to also redeem his shameful reputation.

Well today the New York Sate Appelate Court concluded that Rather has no leg to stand on and that he is culpable for the entire incident and that CBS bears no unjust penalty for the way in which Dan Rather ended his career with them . Thecourt dismissed his case and his chance for the $70 million in damages that he was suing CBS for.

Not one to give up, Rather’s reach for the rehabilitation of his reputation will continue as he seeks another appeal to this this decision. But hopefully, if there really is any truth in justice, the real facts and documents involved in Rather’s shaky appeal will prevail over the falsified facts and records that Rather has been proven to run with. In the end, hopefully not only he will he not profit from his wrongdoing but maybe he will actually have to suffer the consequences of his deception and forever remain a disgraced and biased member of the lamestream media’s liberal elite.

In a close vote which moderate Democrats made the difference, the Senate Finance Committee voted down amendments to health management and care reform legislation that called for the so called public option. With 10 Republicans and 13 Democrats on the finance committee, Democrats who do not see any merit in a “public option” provided the margin that led to this most recent determination. The particular amendment voted on was proposed y the rarely effectively liberal Senator from West Virginia, Jay Rockefeller.

Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad and most telling of all, the Senate Finance Committee’s Chairman, Senator Max Baucus were the Democrats responsible for reaching the public option.

This does not end debate or attempts by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram mandatory government run health insurance and care through Congress, however this is a setback to them and a gain for the American people. Next on the docket is another similar amendment for a different government run health care option being proposed by New York liberal Schmuck Schumer. That vote looks like it is headed for the same rejection that Jay Rockerfeller’s amendment received from his finance committee colleagues.

This vote essentially sends to the entire Senate, an opinion in objection to the deceptively titled public insurance option that would most assuredly usher in a greater amount of government control and largess that many believe is not only ineffective and ultimately detrimental but also unconstitutional.

I may not be happy with it, but Barack Obama is my President. From a politically partisan perspective I believe that he should be attacked as relentlessly as partisans on the other side of the aisle attacked President George W. Bush. But unlike those on the left, I believe President Obama should only be attacked on those matters and issues which legitimately warrant the harsh criticism that I will be among the first to offer.

However as my President, I must assume that both he and I do share a desire to serve the best interests of our nation. To consider otherwise is ludicrous. President Obama is not the American enemy, we just see what is in our nation’s best interests differently. That is why I will surely criticize him with vehemence on that which we disagree upon and it is also why I will defend with equal vehemence when I agree with him.

That sense of conviction has prompted me to defend President Obama on several previous occasions and it is that same sense of conviction which currently puts me at odds with many of my allies on the right side of the political spectrum today.

President Obama’s recent trip to Copenhagen to make a last minute appeal to the International Olympic Committee regarding approval for the 2016 Olympic Games to be held in Chicago has received a great deal of criticism from many sectors. People from all sides of the political divide have stated that the cost and time expended on this presidential pitch for the Olympics is a waste of time and sign of misplaced priorities. Many on the right contend that the President needs to focus on more pressing matters. Military family members have come out and stated their utter anger over the fact that President Obama would devote time and energy to securing the Olympics for his adopted hometown while procrastinating on making life or death decisions pertaining to Afghanistan and the need for the extra troops that could help their sons and daughters fighting there. Some have stated that the President has no right to travel the globe to meet with the International Olympic Committee about games when he has only spoken to the commanding officials of the Afghan war only once in over 70 days.

These arguments, and a panoply of others, do resonate. They are not entirely without merit. In fact, they have legitimate place in the debate. However, I see President Obama’s efforts to secure the holding of the 2016 Olympic Games in the United States as worthy.

The Olympic Games are an important symbol in the world and even more than its symbolism is its value. The Olympics are a truly unifying event that celebrates the best of the human spirit. It is a reflection of mans intrinsic instinct to achieve the heights of our individual potential, a potential that often becomes a patriotic representation of the potential of each nation’s people as a whole. Beyond that is the economic value. Well run Olympic Games increase commerce, employment, tourism and promotes good will and a certain elevated stature on the world stage for the nation hosting the games.

To do what one can to win the opportunity to host the Olympics is a worthy cause and for the leader of a nation to make a personal pitch for that opportunity is not unprecedented. In fact many experts will tell you that it is smart and I agree.

So I disagree with many of my own party and political persuasion on the importance and value of President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen. I commend him for the effort and seeing as how President Obama is about as popular on the world stage as Paul McCartney at a Beatles revival concert, there is no one better that we could use to try to win the International Olympic Committee over.

So I defend President Obama’s decision to spend a few hours to try to get the Olympics to come to the United States and play out in Chicago. But at the same time I am not completely at odds with those who criticize the President for that effort. President Obama has left himself open to the criticism. He has procrastinated on crucial decisions regarding Afghanistan. He has yet to produce any perceivable progress in turning the economy around and increasing employment in America. He has created great doubts about other issues which he himself has made priorities.

Add to that his costly use of Air Force One for trips to Chicago for quiet dinners with his wife and to New York to take in a Broadway show or even the terrifying use of Air Force One for photo ops that scared the hell out of terrorized New Yorkers and it is easy to see how some could charge that this recent trip to Copenhagen is as frivolous an expense and waste of time as many other excursions that President Obama has had a hand in.

So President Obama has opened himself up to the hoopla and brouhaha that his bid for the Olympic Games has created. But I believe that his effort is worthy and warranted. I also believe that a President should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and as such, while I defend his personal pitch for the Olympic Games, I also criticize him for not acting properly, effectively or timely on other matters of even greater importance. Had he been on top of everything he needs to be, he would not have been attacked so strongly for doing something, that under normal circumstances, most of us would commend him for.

Contrary to critics of my own, I am fair, and in all fairness, as I stated, the President’s try at winning the right to hold the 2016 games in the United States has legitimacy. But at the same time, the charges he has opened himself up to also have legitimacy.

When Bill Clinton was President of the United States, with childlike thinking, he could do no wrong. Anything and everything he did had an excuse and could be excused away.

While running for President, when it became impossible for candidate Clinton to deny smoking marijuana during his college years, he admitted trying it but instead of taking responsibility for it, he excused it away by saying he did not inhale.

When Gennifer Flowers released tape recordings that captured Bill Clinton’s discussion of a cover-up of their affair and his giving her a state job, the Clinton’s claimed it was not true and media outlets from CNN to the Washington Post initially kept the contents secret as for as long as possible.

Then the Post went so far as to say that “segments of the excerpts could support either Flowers’ version of events or Clinton’s.” The recordings caught the President-to-be telling his mistress “If they ever ask if you’ve talked to me about it, you can say no” and “If they ever hit you with it, just say no and go on. There’s nothing they can do. I expected them to look into it and come interview you. But if everybody is on record denying it, no problem“. Yet despite the truth of reality, the liberal establishment wanted us to believe that none of this was true. The collusion of a vast liberal establishment explained it away. They said it was Gennifer Flowers who was wrong and that the good governor of Arkansas was nothing other than a victim.

Liberal collusion excused away, the incident and rather than question the integrity of the President-to-be, and heed the warning message, the liberal establishment sought to kill the messenger.

These were just two of more than two dozen scandals large and small. Some people can minimize the not inhaling and mistress escapades as insignificant or meaningless. To an extent, that may be true, however; as insignificant as some of these individual cases may or may not have been, Clinton’s denials and excuses were not insignificant. In fact, his denials and excuses became even more important than the initial transgressions which prompted them. They were signs of a lack of integrity, sincerity, responsibility as well as a lack of maturity.

But as time forged ahead so did the Clinton’s and their strategy of denial. The excuses turned into lies and the more scandals that broke the more lies developed. It was a trend that eventually became the norm and almost reached a point of not even being newsworthy anymore.

Until, the lies were told to a grand jury.

During the course of an official investigation on improper business deals involving the Clinton’s, the discovery of another affair warranted questioning. Questioning of the President, who under oath, denied any sexual relationship with a White House intern. The issue probably would have been over and done if the President admitted to his affair. Most Americans would not have been surprised and went on with their life with the knowledge of the fact that our President was an adulterer with no respect for his wife, his officer or the White House where he conducted his affair. But President Clinton didn’t admit to it. Despite his mistresses dresses which were stained with the President’s excitement, he made it clear that he did not have sex with the intern. He even waved his bony finger to the American people as he punctuated “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”.

But the problem with this continued lie was that before lying to his family and his American constituency, he lied to a grand jury, and he did so while under an oath, an oath where he swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

That lie is what became more of an issue than what the initial investigation which led to the lie was about in the first place. It became a case of perjury. A charge that for any average citizen, brought with it the penalty of imprisonment, but for a President it warranted impeachment and then the possibility of prison.

This lie, a lie made under an oath that swore our President to the telling of the truth, compromised the office of the most powerful office in the world. It devalued the word and believability of our President and placed his leadership of our nation in jeopardy. But once again, the President and the collusion of a vast liberal establishment tried to excuse it all away. Like children with their hand caught in the cookie jar. The President and his loyal liberal fans tried to say that he had his hand in the cookie but he was not getting the cookie for himself. No, he was going to give the cookie to the dog, yeah that’s it, he was giving it to the dog.

The President offered excuse after excuse. Liberals claimed that because the lie dealt with a personal matter, it didn’t matter. And the President’s wife went on television to tell the world that it wasn’t lie. She claimed that all the woes of the incident were all a part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Then, weeks later Hillary Clinton stopped talking. Even to her husband, the President. When his affair became a fact as sure as the changing of the seasons, the President could not make any more excuses. For the first time in his life, he had to take responsibility for his actions.

Now, years later, the excuse that Bill Clinton’s wife created for his own problems in the 90‘s, is the same excuse that he is using for the problems of Democrat President Obama and his party.

In a Sunday television interview, the former philanderer and president claimed that all the opposition to President Obama is due to a “vast right wing conspiracy”.

You would think that an educated man of 63 who has been a Governor and a President would have reached maturity by now. You would think he outgrew the lack of control that led to his youthful indiscretions of drug use in college. You would think he gained some sense of the responsibility integrity and honesty that he lacked during the many affairs he conducted behind his wife’s back.

That’s what one would think, but apparently liberals are incapable of maturity. They apparently never outgrow the mentality of irresponsible conduct that often accounts for youthful indiscretions. In fact they refuse to take responsibility for anything.

If President Obama is having a tough time of convincing people that socialized medicine is the best thing since sliced bread, blame it on the right. If unemployment rates continue to rise, blame it on the right. Can’t produce a legitimate birth certificate, blame it on conservatives. Liberals even blame the weather on Republicans.

Bill Clinton is “only” 63. I state “only” because I will be generous here. I will use a historical scale to compare former President Clinton to. By that standard the national history the United States is all of 233 years old. Measured against 233 years, 63 is relatively young. So I will give the 63 year old former President the benefit of the doubt and write off his continued excuses for Democrats to youthful exuberance and naïveté. The modern Democrat Party though is a different story. They are 181 years old. Even compared to the scale of our nation’s age, that must be considered mature. Yet they too, still make excuses for their inability to lead.

Democrats do nothing but make excuses and point fingers. They act like little children who take no responsibility for any of their actions. But let’s face it folks. They are in charge. Democrats have the presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate. They are in charge of everything. Don’t you think it is time they begin to act responsibly and take some responsibility?

Liberals have gotten what they have wanted for more than a decade now. Full control. They have it all. They have been given adult responsibilities. They are our leaders and they alone. It is time that they start being leaders. They do not need a single Republican vote for anything. The number of Republicans on Capitol Hill are too insignificant to block any liberal initiatives or to impede any national responsibility that they have.

SO GROW UP LIBERALS,! Stop making excuses, stop crying and stop trying to blame everyone else for your own problems. Telling us that the dog ate your legislation and that the big bad Republican boogie men are scaring you doesn’t work anymore!

You cannot blame the lack of sales of your product on the consumer. The consumer will buy a good product if it is good and worth the price. What President Obama and the liberal leaders of his party are trying to sell, simply isn’t a good product and it has too high a cost. It is time for Democrats to stop making excuses. They must begin to take responsibility and to try to make a better product to pitch to the people.

“Is the sloppiness in speech caused by ignorance or apathy? I don’t know and I don’t care”

Those where the words once spoken by a man who found a passion for the defense of proper grammar and the origins of the usage of contemporary phrases. They are the words of William Safire, a conservative minded man whose words and articulation of the conservative opinions and unparallel defense of civil liberties made him quite deserving of distinction as a respected literary figure.

Since 1974, his editorials appeared in of all places, The New York Times and his conservative credentials were often challenged. Shortly after Safire started his column in the Times the paper’s publisher even received such challenges from readers of Safire’s works. One such letter decried “”Safire is not a conservative in any true sense, never has been one, and he has not come up in any way through the editorial processes. Rather, he is a paid manipulator. He is not a man of ideas or politics but rather a man of tricks…. It’s a lousy column and it’s a dishonest one. So close it. Or you end up just as shabby as Safire.” But as Safire persisted, many came around to find that he was no man of tricks. His writings proved him to be a true and level headed conservative, one whose articulation of conservative principle and thought was almost immune from being criticized as “extremist” or “radical right wing” ramblings.

Safire did not use tricks to advance the cause, he used logic and literature to advance it with a flare that always drove his point home. One time that point led former President Bill Clinton to once say that he wanted to punch Safire in the nose. That statement surfaced after a Safire column described Hillary Clinton as a congental liar

After writing over three thousand columns and 15 books through his New York Times Sunday column “on Language”, Safire intrigued many with his explanations for such things as the origins of words and everyday phrases such as “straw-man,” ”under the bus” and “the proof is in the pudding.” His column on language was well received by the public. But in 1978 his token conservative opinions in the New York Times afforded Safire critical acclaim and earned him a Pulitzer Prize.

But before his public writing career, the conservative Safire lent his talents to public service. In the late 60’s and early 70’s, Safire served President Richard Nixon as a speechwriter, a position that allowed him to shape the voice and message of the administration . It was during this time that one of Safire’s best know use of words was created to best describe the relentless and biased media of the time. The phrase “nattering nabobs of negativism” resonated well with a “silent majority” weary of media criticism. Prior to his position with President Nixon, Safire was an advertising executive. His relationship with the Republican administration developed during the now famous Nixon-Kruschev “Kitchen Debate”. That encounter took place in a model home that was built aclient of Safire and the chance happening sparked Safire’s political service.

Never one to mince words or use them improperly, Safire provided America with a rational conservative assessment of the reality of today’s politics and an appreciation for the language used in both political discourse and everyday life. At 79 years old, William Safire leaves us in body but the heart and soul he put in to his writing will remain an enduring influence of American life.

Does the Constitution allow for the government to mandate that one purchase health insurance?

That is a question which may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States for as the debate on how to make sure that all Americans have access to affordable health care rages on the debate on whether or not the government can force people to buy into it has really yet to begin. But one thing is for sure, the heavy hand of government that is exercised in current government run health management and care reform measures is so heavy handed that clearly neither our Constitution or our nation’s founding principle of freedom are being considered.

Case in point. Republican Senator John Ensign asked the Joint Committee on Taxation’s chief of staff, for the committee’s assessment of taxes and penalties relating to pending health care reform legislation. He received a handwritten response from the JCT’s Chief of Staff Tom Barthold, as seen in the above photo, that read as follows:

Dear Senator Ensign;

Section 7203 provides that if there is a willful failure to file, pay, maintain appropriate records and the like that the taxpayer may be charged with a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 25,000 and not more than 1 year in jail.

Sincerely;

Thomas A. Barthold

Felony tax evasion provides for restitution and fine for up to 100,00.00 for an individual and up to five years in jail.

~~~~

I once brought up the fact that what must worry people even more than what Democrats put in health management and care reform legislation is what they don’t put in the bill. This reference was made in regards to the question about whether or not illegal immigrants would be eligible to participate in any government run healthcare program. Before that question was raised, excluding illegal immigrants was not mentioned.

In this case, the Democrat’s constitutionally questionable health insurance mandates would bring into play, the aspects of other existing laws which are not addressed in the existing health care legislation. Those aspects include steep fines and even the specter of imprisonment that could be imposed on anyone who fails to abide by any government mandate that seeks to force one to buy health insurance.

A very large can of worms has been opened up here ladies and gentlemen. The rush to ram through unconstitutional legislation has ramifications far beyond those which have already been discussed. Will there be a proper discussion of these new facts before Democrats “go it alone” and pass a bill that will not improve healthcare in the United States but could seek to coerce people into buying insurance against their will through fines as much as $100,000.00 and imprisonment for as much as five years?

After days of highly publicized speeches given at the opening of the United Nations’ general assembly, one man has emerged as the true leader of the free world. In between speeches from leaders sane and insane of nations large and small, rich and poor, powerful and weak, one person demonstrated himself to be a man of truth and justice, a leader who will stand by and for freedom no matter what the cost.

Throughout modern history, the United States was home to such leaders. For a century or more, with few exceptions, those who led the United States have had so much faith in freedom and fortitude that through word and deed they clearly were true leaders of the free world. We had Presidents who spoke softly but carried big sticks and never made excuses for freedom or democracy.

Yesterday, such a man came forward once again, but it was not the leader of the world’s most powerful nation. It was not the President of the nation known as the world’s beacon of freedom. It was the democratically elected leader of a tiny nation in the Middle East.

In his first appearance before the global union, President Barack Obama excused America’s past and promised to not go it alone. He offered tyrants and terrorists a hand of friendship and a seat at the table. In essence, America’s President compromised freedom for the appeasement of those who oppose freedom.

And then came Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

In what was one of the most frank, lucid and truthful speeches that the world’s diplomatic body has ever heard, this man of the tiny and young nation of Israel made it clear that freedom is not to be compromised and that the defense of freedom will never be apologized for.

Facing those who would rewrite history, Netanyahu took the general assembly gathered before him through a history lesson. He waved in his hands the very documents that described how his people would be exterminated. He spoke of the locations in Germany where Jews were slaughtered and where he was shown the pages that contained the orders which exterminated six million Jews. He presented before the world the written orders the set in motion the genocide of Jews. Orders which contained the signature of Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler.

Appearing after Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who once again denied the atrocities of the holocaust, Netanyahu said…

“Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?”

The question is one that requires an answer. Which nation’s of the world will accept those who deny the truth of history? Which nation’s are willing to overlook the truth in order to appease those who want freedom abridged?

Unlike President Obama, Netanyahu did not blur the lines between good and evil. Netanyahu did not apologize for standing alone in defending against the liars and terrorists who would repeat the worst of histories atrocities if given the chance.

Unlike President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not pretend that we are one, when clearly we are not. He did not put up a façade of false friendships between those who wish to be free and compassionate and those who seek to control and kill. In his own words, speaking of the radical religious fundamentalists and rogue regimes that dot the globe Netanyahu said…..

“Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.”

Few words uttered in the cavernous arena of the UN ever rang more true than those. Yet they were not the words of the leader of the superpower which saw three thousand of its own people killed in one day at the hands of those barbarians who hate civilization. They were the words of a tiny nation’s leader. A tiny civilized nation which lives in the shadow of barbarians. They were spoken by the leader of a small nation whose willingness to say the truth and deal with the truth showed him to be the true leader of the free world.

Without ignoring the truth, without blurring the lines between right and wrong or oppression and freedom, Israel’s Netanyahu brought the realities of the world we live in to the forefront and asked a simple question. It is one that he offered as the representative of a people and nation that confront the evils of freedom hating extremists everyday, but it is one that all true believers in freedom and democracy can ask of themselves. Sadly, it is a question that under President Obama’s leadership, we must even ask of our nation. Netanyahu asked….

“Will you stand with Israel or with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now – not later. If Israel is asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. We can take further risks for peace only if we have confidence that we can defend ourselves.”

Our own nation once asked the same question of others. We once knew that pursing peace was noble but that taking our security for granted in the pursuit of peace was stupidity. We once had leaders who offered trust but only after it was verified. We once drew a clear distinction between civilization and barbarism. Today our nation’s leaders seek to discount and disregard wrongdoing and acts of evil for the sake of harmony. They want global unity and ask us to hold hands even if the hand we are asked to hold is stained with the blood of freedom loving neighbors.

America no longer houses “the” leader of the free world. Today that person lives in Israel, and he is their leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Below, you can view Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech in its entireity, broken down in to four parts:

Michael Dukakis losses out again. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, tapped Paul Kirk, a former chairman of the Democrat national Committee, Kennedy staffer and chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation’s board of directors to fill Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat until a special election is held in January.

Kirk was the preferred choice of the Kennedy clan. Ted Kennedy’s kids lobbied for Kirk in several calls to Governor Patrick.

Paul Kirk is a veteran to Kennedy politics. He has an established relationship with the existing Kennedy staff and will provide what Democrats want most, the 60th vote needed to pass the partisan, Obama government run health management and care reform bill.

Kirk is a 71 year old Boston based attorney who has been a pharmaceutical lobbyist and has no intention to run in the special election that will choose a permanent replacement to fill the remainder of Ted Kennedy’s full 6 year senate term.

For Kirk, for one vote and 3 months of service in the senate and putting up with Harry Reid will be well worth the effort. He will forever keep the title of “Senator, have Senate for privileges and also have a lifetime Capitol Hill parking space.

As for Mike Dukakis, he will continue to be labeled the man that fell short. Again.

The left likes to use phrases such as “the majority of Americans want healthcare reform”. They try suggest that because of that they are right and everyone else is wrong. But that distortion exceeds the bounds of sincerity. The phrase is true but what the left neglects to mention is the remainder of that phrase. A majority of Americans do want healthcare reforms, but they don’t want the reforms that liberals are trying to ram down our throats.

Click on the image above to visit MillionMedMarch.com

Another phrase they like to use is that medical professionals want healthcare reform. But there again, Democrats are showing their propaganda skills.

Many doctors do not particularly want government run health management and care. Many insist that government health management and care programs like Medicare pay only cents on the dollar to doctors for the services that they provide. They also contend to the fact that it often takes up to five years to receive those cents from the government run program.

Beyond that and the legitimate profit concern, many doctors who have read the healthcare bill, are disturbed by what they call government intervention that gets in the way of the normal doctor-patient relationship. So much so that they believe government run health management and care could be more of detriment than a help.

So the lies of the left last only so long and go only so far in the healthcare debate. For doctors who are tired of Democrats exploiting them and lying about them, they have gotten pretty fed up by all of it. That’s why on October 1st, doctors from across America will be marching on Washington, DC.

They have organized what is called Million Med March. It is A physician grassroots movement of physicians trying to, as they put it, re-establish honor, dignity and worth to the medical profession. That its sole mission is to protect the relationship between the doctor and the patient.

The march will begin at John Marshall Park and end at the Upper Senate Park where a rally will conducted. Once it is over, all of these doctors will breakup and to meet with their state representatives.

The time has come for Democrats to face facts. Most people do not want government run healthcare and they do not want to be forced into government run programs. Liberals have to accept the fact that their lies can only get them so far and their lies on health management and care reform have run their course. The doctors of the Million Med March are simply more evidence of that fact.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid need to come to the realization that HR 3200 will either have to be thrown out and begin work on a bipartisan plan with Republicans at the table, break the bill down and try to pass individual aspects of it, or ignore the majority of Americans who oppose their plan and pass the bill by themselves, along strictly partisan lines. If they choose to do it alone, the blame will be theirs alone and the retribution will be the throwing out on their collective arses come November of 2010.

The American people realize that and so do the doctors of the Million Med March.

If you are new to this story, understand, what is happening in Syria has nothing to do with chemical weapons. It also has nothing to do with dead civilians. In recent years, your lawless federal government, US Inc., has killed thousands of innocent civilians with missile strikes, paid mercenaries and drone attacks. Obama authorizes these […]

Last week should have been a wake up call for the GOP. They received more positive press than they have in a very long time on the heels of Senator Rand Paul’s 13 hour ‘fillibuster’ in which he ranted and raved against the vague policy of the use drones on American soil. Standing with Senator […]

Originally posted on White House 2016:Abraham Lincoln. Arguably one of the most famous Presidents America has ever had. Whether directing the country through the Civil War, abolishing slavery or hunting vampires, Honest Abe is a pillar of American politics. The standard bearer of presidential legacies. Today however, Licoln’s memory and legacy have been hija […]